get_all_pages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the output shape (id/name/childCount), the optional frame expansion, and that includeTopLevel defaults false 'to keep output small'. It does not state read-only status or note any size/pagination limits on very large files, leaving a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, the optional expansion next, and the usage hint last. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies the returned fields and how includeTopLevel changes them, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior such as large-file handling or ordering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents includeTopLevel, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the effect ('also list each page's top-level frames') without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('Compact map of every page in the open file') and even enumerates the returned fields (id/name/childCount), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not name a sibling like get_document_info or get_document_tree to differentiate itself, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this once to get a full-file overview before targeted reads' gives a clear condition for when this tool applies and positions it ahead of the read tools. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.